Merged: WHO warns against homeopathy use

[Rrose Selavy]

Quote:

People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned. It was responding to calls from young researchers who fear the promotion of homeopathy in the developing world could put people's lives at risk.
The group Voice of Young Science Network has written to health ministers to set out the WHO view.
WHO TB experts said homeopathy had "no place" in treatment of the disease.

There is no objective evidence that homeopathy has any effect on these infections


Dr Nick Beeching, Royal Liverpool University Hospital


In a letter to the WHO in June, the medics from the UK and Africa said: "We are calling on the WHO to condemn the promotion of homeopathy for treating TB, infant diarrhoea, influenza, malaria and HIV.
"Homeopathy does not protect people from, or treat, these diseases.
"Those of us working with the most rural and impoverished people of the world already struggle to deliver the medical help that is needed.
"When homeopathy stands in place of effective treatment, lives are lost."

More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

[SkeptiChick]

A very good start! Now all they have to do is denounce homeopathy for anything and everything else, except for treating dehydration

[Rocko]

Excellent. Good for the Voice of Young Science. Also a particularly unashamed BBC article about it; nice to see them not pussyfooting around in their coverage.

[CanadaGlass]

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

A very good start! Now all they have to do is denounce homeopathy for anything and everything else, except for treating dehydration

But the cure is water, so it would need to be diluted with air...

[Olowkow]

I was wondering if a parent could be prosecuted for using homeopathic remedies for an ailment that results in death, like praying resulted in negligent deaths recently.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

Nice article. But its followed by an ad on the site that reads:

Quote:

Homeopathic Remedies
Homeopathy and Homeopathic Remedies Order today limited time offer
www.PowerfullHealing.com

Sigh.

[Madouc]

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

A very good start! Now all they have to do is denounce homeopathy for anything and everything else, except for treating dehydration

Haha, not even - from the article:

Quote:

"Homeopathy does not focus on the treatment and prevention of dehydration - in total contradiction with the scientific basis and our recommendations for the management of diarrhoea."

[fls]

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

A very good start! Now all they have to do is denounce homeopathy for anything and everything else, except for treating dehydration

It is a bit hypocritical of them, considering they have a strategic plan which includes "facilitating integration of TM/CAM into national health care systems" which includes homeopathy.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1.pdf

And I know it's tempting and done in jest (and I've done it myself), but I think we should consider stopping the pretense that homeopathic remedies have anything to do with the the actual remedy or the actual causative agent. A homeopath would not treat dehydration with diluted water. To make jokes as though they do lends credence to the practice - "they're just like regular remedies, but safer" or "they're just like regular vaccines, but safer".

Linda

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by SkeptiChick

A very good start! Now all they have to do is denounce homeopathy for anything and everything else, except for treating dehydration

I know it's a joke, but how would sugar pills treat dehydration? How would a small amount of 95% alcohol treat dehydration? Even in the unlikely event of the homoeopath using a water-based remedy, how would "a few drops" of water treat dehydration?

We do need to stop this nonsense of "it's only water". It's actually very seldom water that's given to the patient.

Rolfe.

[Seoigeach]

People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned.

It was responding to calls from young researchers who fear the promotion of homeopathy in the developing world could put people's lives at risk.....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211925.stm

[Crundy]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151550

[MRC_Hans]

Cool article. Off to my favorite homeeopathic forum to post a link :lol:

Hans

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I know it's a joke, but how would sugar pills treat dehydration? How would a small amount of 95% alcohol treat dehydration? Even in the unlikely event of the homoeopath using a water-based remedy, how would "a few drops" of water treat dehydration?

We do need to stop this nonsense of "it's only water". It's actually very seldom water that's given to the patient.

Rolfe.

Very true.
In Germany they tend to use lactose pills which have been sprayed with the homeopathic solution. The pills are then dried and packaged.

Should water actually have a memory (which the homeopaths have yet to prove,) then it still doesn't explain how that "memory" could get transferred to the lactose.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by fls

...but I think we should consider stopping the pretense that homeopathic remedies have anything to do with the the actual remedy or the actual causative agent.

You're not the only one, apparently.

[Seoigeach]

thanks - just saw the other thread

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Cool article. Off to my favorite homeeopathic forum to post a link :lol:

Hans

uh uh uh uh, link link link

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by fls

It is a bit hypocritical of them, considering they have a strategic plan which includes "facilitating integration of TM/CAM into national health care systems" which includes homeopathy.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1.pdf

Quite. Indeed this 2005 SKEPP article was pretty scathing about the WHO's intentions:

Beware of Quacks at the WHO: Objecting to the WHO Draft Report on Homeopathy
http://ro-e.redorbit.com/news/health...who/index.html

[Seoigeach]

Found the points below on a sceptical website some time ago and copied it down.
If the original author of these points spots this - well done!


1. Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar international industry whose monies are earned selling people sugar water.

2. Homeopathic preparations are produced by diluting substances in water to a level where none of the substance is left (that's right...NONE...just plain old water remains). The over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in your local health food store or chemist are generally in the form of pills. These pills are lactose (sugar) tablets on which a single drop of this plain water has been placed. Homeopathic preparations contain no active ingredients. There is no medicine in this 'medicine'. You are buying sugar and water only. On the side of each bottle a particular herbal extract or mineral is listed, along with the dilution; but not one molecule of these herbs or minerals is actually in the tablets.

3. Homeopaths know this but say that the water in the preparations "remembers" that it was once in contact with such ingredients and can transmit this memory by unknown forces to your body. These claims constitute some of the most extraordinary and bizarre in the alternative healthcare field and yet people tend to see homeopathy as mainstream and plausible (many may mix it up with herbalism, and think the preparations contain active ingredients).

4. Strange that the water remembers the homeopathic product it was in contact with, but manages to ignore the many other pollutants with which it must also have had contact. Very bright water, or very wacky notion. You decide!

5. The claims made by homeopaths about how homeopathy works fundamentally contravene basic laws of chemistry and physics as well as common sense.

6. The effects seen on administration of homeopathic water are far more reasonably explained by well known psychological and physical factors which together constitute the placebo effect.

7. It has been said that Homeopathy is the greatest demonstration of the effectiveness of placebo.

8. Horizon recently took the James Randi $1,000,000 psychic challenge to show that homeopathy works. In the single best controlled scientific study of its kind involving a host of top British scientists the results were crystal clear. Homeopathy does not work. James kept his million.

9. A typical bottle of these sugar tablets costs between €6 and €8. Taken at this rate a 1Kg bag of sugar would cost you approximately €1,400. That's mighty fancy sugar.

10. Still interested in trying out homeopathy? Remember the old adage, 'buyer beware'.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Mojo

You're not the only one, apparently.

Loverly example of how they manage to entirely miss the point.

Although I have to say that the results are a bit of a surprise. Only a third had a major improvement in health (as measured by a piece of artwork produced by reflecting on their care (I'm not joking)), while a full third had no improvement in their health. I would have expected a greater improvement in health (especially since none of these evaluations were tested as to reliability and were not blinded). Maybe this reflects that this case series was much less selected than usual.

Linda

[JAStewart]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Nice article. But its followed by an ad on the site that reads:

[url="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=B0Jh58gmOSuuxAZ2PnQeC9a3zCoinyGysm9rZ C8CNtwGAtRgQAhgCIOeF9BIoAzgAUK-ewcAHYP2wloHoA6AB8ovq_gOyAQ5uZXdzLmJiYy5jby51a8gBA doBLWh0dHA6Ly9uZXdzLmJiYy5jby51ay8yL2hpL2hlYWx0aC8 4MjExOTI1LnN0bagDAegD8wPoA6MD6AP8AegD_QHoA6UD9QMCA AAE9QMkAAAA&num=2&sig=AGiWqtyx2MfGfxNmgMubjoDIBIbg BL7v1Q&client=ca-bbccom&adurl=http://www.powerfullhealing.com/offers/hp/%3Fbid_keyword%3Dhomeopathic%26campaign%3Dhomepath ics%26ad%3Dhomeopathic_ad_P"]

Sigh.

Well thats probably for out-of-US readers. There are no ads on the UK version

[Rrose Selavy]

Yep ! We see no ads . That's what we pay our TV license for here in the UK.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I was wondering if a parent could be prosecuted for using homeopathic remedies for an ailment that results in death, like praying resulted in negligent deaths recently.

Like Death by homeopathy

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by Mojo

You're not the only one, apparently.

This of course is yet another very weak attempt to distance RCTs from homeopathy. Look, what is it that homeopaths are claiming? They claim that ultra-dilute solutions have therapeutic effects. That's eminently testable by RCTs, and has been repeatedly with results that we all know show nothing. Well are they now saying that no, these solutions don't have therapeutic effects, it's all down to the consultation? Who do they think they are kidding? The fact is that any of the `putative active ingredients' so cleverly identified by these researchers can be tested by RCTs. In particular the remedies themselves. They may have pulled the wool over the eyes of BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine and its reviewers, but some of us are a bit cannier. Anyway I am never going to give any credence to a paper from such a journal.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Asolepius

This of course is yet another very weak attempt to distance RCTs from homeopathy. Look, what is it that homeopaths are claiming? They claim that ultra-dilute solutions have therapeutic effects. That's eminently testable by RCTs, and has been repeatedly with results that we all know show nothing. Well are they now saying that no, these solutions don't have therapeutic effects, it's all down to the consultation? Who do they think they are kidding? The fact is that any of the `putative active ingredients' so cleverly identified by these researchers can be tested by RCTs. In particular the remedies themselves. They may have pulled the wool over the eyes of BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine and its reviewers, but some of us are a bit cannier. Anyway I am never going to give any credence to a paper from such a journal.

Well, it's QUANTUM, innit?

'Nuff said.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Asolepius

This of course is yet another very weak attempt to distance RCTs from homeopathy. Look, what is it that homeopaths are claiming? They claim that ultra-dilute solutions have therapeutic effects. That's eminently testable by RCTs, and has been repeatedly with results that we all know show nothing. Well are they now saying that no, these solutions don't have therapeutic effects, it's all down to the consultation? Who do they think they are kidding? The fact is that any of the `putative active ingredients' so cleverly identified by these researchers can be tested by RCTs. In particular the remedies themselves. They may have pulled the wool over the eyes of BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine and its reviewers, but some of us are a bit cannier. Anyway I am never going to give any credence to a paper from such a journal.

I perhaps have a slightly different take on the referenced article. My interpretation is that "homeopathy works because homeopaths spend more time with their "patients"" and that the "medicine" has nothing to do with the results. Now repeat the study using distilled water instead of the homeopathic preparation and see if you get the same results (weak though they are). If you get the same results (and I'm prepared to bet money you will), then that's the end of homeopathy. Or it should be.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I was wondering if a parent could be prosecuted for using homeopathic remedies for an ailment that results in death, like praying resulted in negligent deaths recently.

I think so, but they'd really be prosecuted for the negligence, not for using homeo remedies. Fortunately, I think most homeopathic users only use it when it doesn't really matter.

I doubt you'd see one withholding life-saving antibiotics from a child in favor of the homeopathic remedy.

On the other hand--it's a big world. I'm sure someone is bound to take their belief in homeopathy that seriously.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8211925.stm

There's very little there that is directly quoting anyone at the WHO, and no indication that this is a position the WHO itself has adopted - just comments from two individuals.

[fls]

The WHO position seems to be that traditional medicines, including homeopathy, may not be effective, but at least they are more accessible. When effective medicines are not available, instead of offering nothing, it allows people the option of 'something'. This is like solving the problem of insufficient food by promoting Breatharianism.

Linda

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I perhaps have a slightly different take on the referenced article. My interpretation is that "homeopathy works because homeopaths spend more time with their "patients"" and that the "medicine" has nothing to do with the results. Now repeat the study using distilled water instead of the homeopathic preparation and see if you get the same results (weak though they are). If you get the same results (and I'm prepared to bet money you will), then that's the end of homeopathy. Or it should be.

OK, but they conclude thus:

Quote:

These findings counsel against the use of placebo-controlled RCT designs in which both arms would potentially be receiving specific active ingredients. Future research in homeopathy should focus on pragmatic trials and seek to confirm or refute the therapeutic role of constructs such as patient "openness", disclosure and homeopathicity.

They misunderstand what science is. The whole point of the RCT is to separate these various effects, not to merge them. Of course, these people want them merged so as to disguise the inefficacy of homeopathy. They also don't understand the heirarchy of evidence, and are always trying to leapfrog rigorous trials by proposing `pragmatic' (ie usually crappy) trials instead. Pragmatic trials and other forms of evidence do have a role, but only to assess the generalisability of RCTs. This rubbish always gets me somewhat exercised!

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by fls

The WHO position seems to be that traditional medicines, including homeopathy, may not be effective, but at least they are more accessible. When effective medicines are not available, instead of offering nothing, it allows people the option of 'something'. This is like solving the problem of insufficient food by promoting Breatharianism.

Linda

It is the same as Mao Tse Tung's expansion of TCM, because he didn't have enough real doctors.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Asolepius

OK, but they conclude thus: They misunderstand what science is. The whole point of the RCT is to separate these various effects, not to merge them. Of course, these people want them merged so as to disguise the inefficacy of homeopathy. They also don't understand the heirarchy of evidence, and are always trying to leapfrog rigorous trials by proposing `pragmatic' (ie usually crappy) trials instead. Pragmatic trials and other forms of evidence do have a role, but only to assess the generalisability of RCTs. This rubbish always gets me somewhat exercised!

I know what they are saying and I know what I am say. What I am suggesting is logical. What the quacks suggest is ignorant and self supporting.

[blutoski]

Article: [WHO warns against homeopathy use]

Excerpt:

Quote:

People with conditions such as HIV, TB and malaria should not rely on
homeopathic treatments, the World Health Organization has warned.

Blutoskitorial:
Mixed feelings about this. Good to see the warning; not so happy to see that it's limited to a few illnesses.

[fls]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151550

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think so, but they'd really be prosecuted for the negligence, not for using homeo remedies. Fortunately, I think most homeopathic users only use it when it doesn't really matter. .....
On the other hand--it's a big world. I'm sure someone is bound to take their belief in homeopathy that seriously.

Thanks, good points. rjh01 posted a thread I missed somehow.

Originally Posted by rjh01

Like Death by homeopathy

We were in a Walgreens a while back, and I was amazed to find that they sold homeo stuff. I remarked to the pharmacist on duty, playing the naif, that I thought this had been debunked. He was quick to defend it.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Mojo

You're not the only one, apparently.

Wow! That is an amazing contribution to the project that CAM advocates have engaged in to avoid the bleedin' obvious.*

The most interesting thing here is the authors' determined attempt to hijack the words "active" and "specific" to describe the effects of the consultation rather than the little pills.

Some choice excerpts;
*
The relative contributions of remedy and context cannot be distinguished either in real-world homeopathy or in this study. Most homeopaths behave as if the remedy is the main active ingredient.

I know, I know, I know. Give me an R. Give me a C. Give me a T.*

We cannot conclude that these health gains were caused by the homeopathic therapy but in most cases this is a reasonable working hypothesis

How would you test that? Again, with feeling...*Give me an R. Give me a C. Give me a T.

An overall observation is how much the authors discuss their results as if they had done a quantitative study. This is another classic trick if tendentiously reported science- include the formal caveats, so you are insulated from criticism, but then write without paying any attention to them.*

*On patient-generated ratings of consultational empathy, BHH doctors' average was slightly lower than that of GPs in Scotland. In the one case of apparent breakdown in rapport there was otherwise unexplained clinical failure. These data suggest that empathy is necessary for good outcome but there was no correlation between empathy levels and outcome. Indeed, peculiarly, the opposite was true. Those that did well clinically rated their doctors as less empathic within this small sample

This final point us just funny. In their false non-quantitative way they say they have shown that in their 1-hour consultations their homeopaths did not manage to be any nicer than the poor old NHS GP in his rushed 10-minutes.*

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

(don't know how all those asterisks got there. Seems to be related to me copying and pasting sections of text on my phone. It's a bit fiddly to edit them, so please ignore them)

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Mojo

There's very little there that is directly quoting anyone at the WHO, and no indication that this is a position the WHO itself has adopted - just comments from two individuals.

There's some further info here, and the letter itself here. It includes several direct quotations, followed by:

Quote:

The office of Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, stated on 14th August 2009 that these responses “clearly express the WHO’s position”.

[Mojo]

And Here's the Quackometer's comment on the SoH's response:

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009...mbles-and.html

I was wondering how long it would be before Dana Ullman turned up to try to defend the Jacobs diarrhea studies.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Mojo

There's some further info here, and the letter itself here. It includes several direct quotations, followed by:

Got any Hom forum links discussing this? They should be funny (and infuriating).

(I plead feeble mobile phone signal as the excuse for not looking for myself.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Got any Hom forum links discussing this? They should be funny (and infuriating).

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforu....asp?TID=10149

http://abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/193328/

It's all a Big Pharma plot:

Originally Posted by sadeqahmed

The fact is clear. The allpathic drug companies do their lobbying activity to save their business. Usually homeopathy is not a threat for sick people, it is only a threat for the drug companies. The allopathic drug companies always want to make the people sick to promote their business. So when the make a medicine for a specific disease, it create 5 more disease, which only increase their customer. Iron Tablet, Calcium Tablet as well as vaccination prevent natural birth and result as Caeser or Episiotomy; which increase the customer for allpathic hospital and also increase the customer for caeserian instrument produced or distributed by drug companies. Recently dozens of children died and hundreds became sick in Bangladesh after taking Vitamin A capsule and anti-worm capsule. In USA, swine-flue virus was firstly detected from a area which is located near a vaccine company. Vaccine of Measles create measeless and fever with is more severe than real measeless. These vaccines only promote the Paracitamol and Antibiotics products of drug companies. The affected people have being victim of the capitalist exploitation by drug companies.

Otherhealth seems to be ignoring it.


Off-topic, but while I was looking for those I found this from our old friend muntadev2in:

Quote:

Identification of Homeopathic medicines

Observation of the following things in nature has lead to the thought of identification of Homeopathic medicines:


·Natural regulatory mechanisms

·Variability in physical and physiological parameters in physics and biology

·Orbit of earth and moon - Distance from sun

·Time of rotation of earth

·Bio clock

·Bio-magnetism

·Time of aggravation – Homeopathy

·Bio rhythms – Homeopathy

·Time and space effect

·Is time a 'real' dimension?

·Space-time

...